From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706Ab1LFSFt (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:05:49 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51256 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752622Ab1LFSFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:05:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:04:02 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ben Hutchings , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on error Message-ID: <20111206180402.GA7080@elte.hu> References: <1319773015.6759.30.camel@deadeye> <1323185640.7454.269.camel@deadeye> <1323193731.32012.81.camel@twins> <20111206175558.3215907c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20111206175558.3215907c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:48:51 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > If you disagree with a patch, do not silently drop parts of it. I > > > demand that you remove my 'Signed-off-by' as this is not the change I > > > submitted. > > > > The easy solution is that I never take patches from you again, ever. > > Consider that done. I'll let Ingo see if he can remove your SOB. > > In which case you are presumably ceasing to be a maintainer for that > code ? Your statement above appears to be inconsistent with the rôle of a > maintainer. Just for the record, Peter is co-maintaining the lockdep code with me (and is doing a superb job with that) and as such he has no obligation whatsoever to interact with every contributor - as long as at least one maintainer considers every patch submitted. Personally, reading various past discussions i can understand Peter not wanting to work with Ben Hutchings for some time - i'll look at his future patches and will consider them. Thanks, Ingo